Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation network meeting Brussels, 25 February 2010

1. Adam Abdulwahab Evaluation network meeting Brussels,25 February 2010 Ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2000-2006 co-financed by the European Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2) Work Package 5b “Environment and Climate Change”

2. Overview of ToR - 1 • Scope: • ERDF environment, including relevant parts of CF • Climate change: exploratory • Task 1: Conceptual basis • Task 2: Environment Strategies in MS • Focus: 14 “big spenders” (ES, IT, DE, EL, PT, FR, PL, IE, UK, CZ, SK, HU, LV, FI)

3. Overview of ToR - 2 • Task 3: Main Outcomes • Output & result Indicators • Effectiveness of major sectoral OPs (in IE, EL, SK, PT, HU, CZ) • Task 4 & 5: Case Studies • General Regional: 10 • Waste management: 3 • Climate change: 3

4. Conceptual Limitations • Impact of environmental infrastructure on growth is not well explored in European context • Short term vs long term • Incremental improvements

5. Financial Allocation • Environment-related interventions, 2000-2006: €25.5 billion (21% of total ERDF allocation) • 86% in 7 MS (DE, EL, ES, FR, IE, IT, PT) and • 50% to only 3 countries - EL, ES, PT • Sectors • Rehabilitation and planning (45%) • Environmental infrastructure (44%) • Environment-friendly technologies (7%) • Energy infrastructure (4%)

6. Significant Contribution to Environment… • Water supply • No. of projects: 3913 • Additional population served: 14.1 million • Wastewater • No. of projects: 6211 • Additional population served: 20.4 million • Solid waste • No. of projects: 2637 • New capacity of waste treatment: 231,649 m3/day • Unauthorised landfills closed/rehabilitated: 964

7. …with factors limiting effectiveness… • Investments were often oversized • Financial sustainability of investments was not always ensured • With the introduction of the 'polluter pays principle', some households in poorer regions refused to connect to the network, especially in the EU-10 • The four cohesion countries (EL, ES, IE, PT) delayed the introduction of the polluter / user pays principles, relying more heavily on European funds

8. …and limited short-term contribution to growth • The need to comply with European directives was the main driver of investments in environmental infrastructure. Main reasons are: • Impact of environmental infrastructure on economic development is unexplored in literature • The Commission also supported the view that an environmental measure is justified even if its only effect is environmental • Capacity problems in implementation favoured selecting projects according to maturity to be implemented, wider socio-economic impacts were less important

9. Rehabilitation and Planning • Important mainly in Objective 2 regions • Only sporadic evidence that they had strong impact on economic development • Evaluation focusing on environmental infrastructure => further analysis needed

10. Climate Change • Not top priority until 2005 • 120 OPs supported some intervention linked to climate change, with total amount of €2.3 billion • More exploratory and smaller interventions • Mainly targeted enterprises • Create capacity for renewable energy production • Energy savings through new technologies • Data is not available whether projects really needed public investments • Wider short-term economic impacts are mixed; can lead to both increased competitiveness or decreased employment

11. Implications • Institutional capacity must be seriously improved • Financial sustainability needs more attention • The “green economy” - need to move beyond environmental infrastructure • Reviewing objectives: Investing in environment is a political choice • Ensuring synergies between environmental infrastructure and economic growth

12. Thank you for your attention